Courts and Tribunals Fees

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I rise to speak as a member of the Justice Committee, whose report we are considering. I wish to add my hearty congratulations to our Chair, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), on his brilliant opening statement; for a while, I thought that there was going to be nothing left for me to say, and I shall be brief as a result.

I also want to congratulate our new shadow Lord Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). [Interruption.] I see that the Lord Chancellor is not here—perhaps his mind is on other matters. What we are considering is far from what he is thinking about at the moment.

It is worth restating that, like all Select Committees, the Justice Committee is a majority Conservative Committee, but we were pretty unanimous in our conclusions on court and tribunal fees. As the Chair pointed out at the start of this debate, our inquiry included the criminal courts charge at the beginning. Our report on that voiced grave misgivings and recommended the abolition of that unfair charge as soon as possible, as it acts as a barrier to justice. Encouragingly, there has been action on that. We welcome the fact that the Government acted swiftly in response to our criticism. We now wish that history would repeat itself with the highly unpopular tribunal fees.

We still await the publication of the Government’s long-awaited post-implementation review of the impact of employment tribunal fees. That was announced in June 2015 and our Committee has called for this to happen urgently. We recommended that fees for employment tribunals be “substantially reduced”. However, the Opposition would go further and recommend abolition. I am proud to have stood on a manifesto at the last general election that urged abolition. I do not know what is in our next manifesto. Four years is a long way off, so I shall not get into Mystic Meg territory.

Ability to pay, or the thickness of the wodge in someone’s wallet, should not determine their access to justice. Fees should not be a barrier to those on low incomes bringing employment tribunal claims. That is what I want to address in this short contribution. It is a cause for concern that women in particular have been hard hit by employment tribunal fees, as shown by the fact that sex discrimination, pregnancy, maternity and equal pay claims have all fallen.

The austerity cuts have hit women hardest—some analyses show that 80% of all cuts hit women. That gives weight to the claim that the Prime Minister—he is still the Prime Minister, isn’t he, though not for that much longer—has a problem with women. It is interesting that the two main runners and riders to replace him are women. Let us see what the future brings.

The Justice Committee interviewed numerous witnesses. We had four evidence sessions, with 23 people appearing before us, and written submissions from 91 stakeholders ranging from pillars of the establishment, such as the Bar Council, to specialist pressure groups, including the self-explanatory Pregnant Then Screwed—that is its name.

Maternity Action gave evidence of maternity discrimination and found that on pregnancy discrimination in particular there has been a fall of 40% in the number of claims in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of fees—40% down. That is nearly half. The group’s figures from 2005 suggest that less than 10% of women suffering pregnancy and maternity discrimination would present themselves anyway, for fear of repercussions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is a pleasant chap, and who is here now, told us repeatedly that ACAS has reported an upsurge in people presenting themselves there. The figure of 84,000 extra cases for ACAS was mentioned. That is not a way to bat away the issue. We identified a number of problems. Part of the justification for the introduction of fees was to recover costs, but in both employment tribunals and the immigration and asylum chamber there has been a massive mismatch between costs and recovery. The costs recovered have fallen far short of what was projected. According to the Courts and Tribunals Service’s annual report for 2014-15, the cost recovery target for employment tribunal fees was set at around 33%. Only 17% has been achieved. For the immigration and asylum chamber, recovery was projected to be around 25%, but in reality it has been a measly 9%.

To add insult to injury, the latest accounts from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2014-15 net income from employment tribunal fees was £9 million, whereas expenditure on the service was £71.4 million. That is a poor ratio. The fees make bad business sense. Just 12.5% of the costs were recovered, at a time of fiscal belt-tightening, when we should justify every pound of public expenditure.

We received evidence from the TUC and Thompsons, the trade union solicitors, that fees have decreased employer engagement with early conciliation. Fees act as a disincentive because people wait to see whether the other side can afford them. If not, there is no point in the public policy initiative to settle before the case gets to the courtroom door.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about claims without merit. I will not go into that, as I said I would be brief.

The Government’s policies have impacted on access to justice in a number of ways. Employment tribunal fees were introduced not in a vacuum, but against a background of measures such as the civil court fee increases, legal aid cuts, restrictions on judicial review, the Trade Union Bill, and the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act. Some Ministers have mooted leaving the European convention on human rights. In our opinion, the cumulative effect of all these things is chipping away at access to justice.

I am a member of Unison, which has said:

“Over the last three years tribunal fees have prevented many people who have been wronged at work from taking their employers to court.

Unscrupulous bosses can hardly believe their luck. They can pretty much treat their staff as badly as they choose, safe in the knowledge they are never likely to be taken to a tribunal.”

Unison is mounting a legal challenge, which is due to be heard at the Supreme Court later this year. Other stakeholders have voiced similarly damning criticisms. The Bar Council called it “a shot in the dark”. Citizens Advice highlights the anomaly whereby the fees are higher than the sum claimed, so they make no business sense. The Law Society talks of “treating justice like a commodity”.

Our report says that

“the overall quantum of fees charged for bringing cases to employment tribunals should be substantially reduced”.

I say they should be completely abolished. In the words of the report,

“further special consideration should be given to the position of women alleging maternity or pregnancy discrimination.”

I would drink to that any day.

I agree with the report’s finding that

“the increase in the divorce petition fee, from £410 to £550, be rescinded”,

and that the review of the employment tribunal fees needs to be published before the Government steam ahead with the hare-brained mistaken aim of full costs recovery in the immigration and asylum chamber. There are more holes in these policies than in a colander—tribunal fees preventing access to justice and trampling on employment rights, the reduction in sex discrimination and equal pay claims at the employment tribunal, and the delayed publication of the review of employment tribunal fees. We should be increasing access to justice, not restricting it, particularly at a time of austerity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I am going to make a bit more progress. I have been given some time, and I have given way to hon. Members from across the House. If towards the end I have got time, I would be happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

I turn to divorce fees, about which hon. Members have made some important points. The Justice Committee criticised the recent increase in the fee for divorce to £550, primarily because of the risk to vulnerable women. The Government have sought to make sure that vulnerable women are protected within the divorce fees scheme. Although it is true—this point has been made—that more women than men petition for divorce, it is also true, although it was rather neglected in this debate, that women are more likely to qualify for a fee remission. In the circumstances of a divorce or any other matter where the parties have conflicting interests in proceedings, the applicant is assessed on his or her own means, rather than on those of the household. For victims of domestic violence, the first priority is to ensure the victim’s safety. There is no court fee for an application for a non-molestation order or any applications in relation to one.

I turn to money claims. There has been criticism of the introduction of enhanced fees for money claims in March 2015, and some criticism of the quality of the research that supported those increases. We have said all along that we took the decisions that we did based on the best evidence available at the time. As things have turned out, the impact of those fee increases on the volume of claims has been greater than we thought. It is easy to be wise in hindsight, and we are investigating the reasons, but in the meantime we have decided not to implement the further increases we proposed. But given the very challenging financial circumstances, we have been clear—I want to be honest with the Chair of the Select Committee and hon. Members—that we may need to come back to those and look at them again when we have got a better understanding of the specific impacts.

There have been criticisms of our proposals to raise the fee in immigration tribunals to full cost levels. We estimate that those proposals would generate about £35 million a year in additional income. The normal policy over many years has been to charge fees at full cost unless there are good reasons not to. I do not see, given the remissions and the other flexibility, why the taxpayer should foot the bill in this case. We are currently considering in detail the responses to the consultation. Under our proposals, certain types of appeal would continue to be exempt from fees; we are talking about vulnerable people who need such flexibility the most. People receiving means-tested benefits, such as asylum support, would continue to have fees waived. We sought views on further exemptions, and specifically on whether we should exempt people in receipt of a Home Office destitution waiver. We are making sure that, notwithstanding the difficulty of the decisions, the most vulnerable are protected.

Meeting the challenges ahead cannot just be about increasing fees. That is why we recognise the need to invest in the courts and tribunals so that they are lean, efficient and fit to serve a modern, digital society. In the spending review, we announced that we would be investing, as I have said, more than £700 million to transform our courts and tribunals system. The scale of that investment and the ambition of our reform plans will enable us to build a justice system that is simpler, swifter and more efficient, because it takes better advantage of modern technology.

Other points and criticisms have been made. We take them on board, and we will respond to them fully in due course. We also need to have a sense of realism. Given the financial situation that we are still grappling with, fees are a critical part of the Ministry of Justice’s plans to meet our spending review challenges.

[Dr Huq]

Could the Minister tell us the cost of administering the employment tribunal fees? There is a mismatch between what they raise and what they cost.

[Mr Raab]

My understanding, off the top of my head, is that it was £71 million. I will come back to the hon. Lady if I find out that that is incorrect.

The truth is that we cannot afford to duck these decisions around fees if we want to secure the long-term funding of the courts and the tribunals and deliver on the mandate on which the Government were elected. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that they want to scrap every fee that has been imposed or duck every difficult decision, but unless they can explain to the House how that will be paid for or the impact that it will have on our economy, it is not the responsible thing to do.

Safety in Custody and Violence in Prisons

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I recently visited HMP Manchester in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding work of prison officers there, facing some challenging prisoners. We are absolutely committed to improving mental health in prisons. NHS England is taking on an extra 20 case managers this year for adult secure services. We have co-commissioning coming up, and we take mental health issues extremely seriously.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The Minister is well aware of the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into prison safety, which addresses the issue of violence. Members might have noticed that on Friday, the news slipped out that the Medway Secure Training Centre, which was mis-run by G4S, has now come into Ministry of Justice hands. The next day, a report came out on Rainsbrook, showing endemic use of force and restraint. Surely the logical conclusion is that the MOJ should now take over Rainsbrook private youth prison.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have a strong sense that Members will be approaching the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee to seek a debate on these matters. I say that because quite a lot of what we have heard has been nearer to debate contributions than to questions. I hope I can make that point gently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I am happy to set out the Government’s position on this important issue. It is an offence under section 168 of the Equality Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The penalty is a maximum of £1,000. As far as sentencing is concerned, my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a matter for the judiciary, which of course acts independently.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T2. Last week, the Justice Committee was at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the judges praised the UK for incorporating the Court’s principles into our law to provide effective redress. However, the Lord Chancellor wants to tear up the Human Rights Act and it now looks as though the Home Secretary wants to leave the convention altogether. I know that an attempt was made to get an answer to this question earlier, but can we actually have some clarity on this? To the outside world, it looks as though the Conservatives have a blind spot in relation to anything containing the words “European” and “human rights”.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I take on board what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am coming to a conclusion. I am more than happy to meet colleagues, but I am afraid the venue would have to be negotiated. It is not every day that I go to Northern Ireland, but if the hon. Lady wants a meeting with me I am more than happy to meet her here in London.

We have ensured that more people are saving for their retirement by requiring employers to enrol their staff on to a pension with our auto-enrolment scheme. In addition to those reforms, we have continued to protect and build on a range of other pensioner benefits, including a permanent increase to cold weather payments, protection of winter fuel payments, and protection of free bus passes.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will not give way. Hopefully the hon. Lady heard what Madam Deputy Speaker directed.

We are providing greater security and choice for people in retirement, while also ensuring that the system is sustainable for the future. That is a record on pensions and pensioners of which Conservative Members can be proud. Parliament has extensively debated accelerating the changes to the state pension age. We listened to all arguments for and against at the time of the Pensions Act 2011, and we made transitional arrangements.

We are far behind other countries in Europe on equalisation—Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Greece have already equalised the pension age for men and women. We must look to the future, not persist in looking backwards. These changes are about putting our pensions system on a secure financial footing, rather than continuous confusion for those affected and further debate. We should build on the high levels of awareness that we already have, and continue to promote flexibility, choice and security for older people. There are no plans on the part of the Government to make policy changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Women who work for fair transitional pension arrangements have been accused by some of being emotional. There is certainly one emotion that unites most of them, and that is anger: anger about the incompetence and stubbornness that have failed to address these issues over many years, and anger about the fact that the arrangements that they made for their retirement were based on either wrong information or no information at all from the Government, and have now been overturned.

Who are the women most affected? Many of them are carers; one lady who wrote to me is caring for a mother in her nineties. Others are women who have had to retire early because of ill health. Yet others are women who have been made redundant in their late fifties and early sixties, and there were a lot of those under the coalition Government. All of them thought that they could just about manage until their state pensions kicked in, only to find that the Government had moved the goalposts, a fact of which they had been totally unaware.

These are also women who have been disadvantaged throughout their working lives. Many of them started work before the Equal Pay Act 1970, and certainly before the cases involving equal pay for work of equal value. Many brought up their children when there was very little childcare, and a number had to take low-paid part-time jobs to fit in with their children’s school hours. As for those who gave up work to look after their children, they were, at that time, given no pension credits for their caring responsibilities, and when they went back to work they found themselves without enough time to build up a decent private pension. Many women have now found themselves redundant, but are being kept in the workforce and put through the Work programme as if they were workshy layabouts, although they have worked all their lives.

Ministers ought to hang their heads in shame for the way they have treated these women. It is not enough, apparently, for this Government to damage women’s prospects in every Budget they have introduced and make them bear the biggest burden of cuts; they also have to damage their retirement prospects—and this is the Government who tell us that they are on the side of strivers. Not if those strivers are women, they aren’t. They have put nearly 2.5 million women in an impossible position. So contemptuous of those women are they that the Secretary of State does not even come here to respond to debates. No doubt he is out fabricating some new fantasy about how our security is threatened by countries like Belgium and Luxembourg, those well-known bellicose nations.

However, the real culprit, whom we have never seen at all, is the Chancellor. Like Macavity the Mystery Cat, whenever there is trouble, he is not here. It is he who decided that women should bear an unfair burden of the cuts. It is he who has made sure that they are paying the price for this Government’s policies. In future, Ministers should listen. They should come to the Dispatch Box with more than the platitudes that we have heard before from this Minister—

[Dr Huq]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

I am sorry; I do not have time.

Ministers should come here and introduce transitional arrangements for these women. They have been the backbone of this country for years, many of them are saving us millions by caring for others, and they have been treated with gross unfairness and contempt by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, 1950s-born women are not usually seen as a militant group. They were born and raised in the era of “Hi honey, I’m home,” spotless perfection, domestic bliss and Formica, but the situation they now find themselves in is far from perfect.

I have only been an MP since May, but, as several Members have mentioned, including the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), this feels a bit like groundhog day. This is the third time I have raised the matter, and at other times I could not even get into Westminster Hall because it was standing room only. The TV show “Desperate Housewives” comes to mind, although the valiant WASPI women are far from desperate.

The Government have to act. The public are making their voices heard, and the Government are on the wrong side of public opinion. It feels like groundhog day because not only is what we are saying falling on deaf ears, but there is a broken record routine in the way we are told that there is no money left. At the same time, we constantly hear that economic growth is returning and things are looking rosy. The two things cannot be reconciled with each other.

The people we are talking about have been hit twice, as everyone has said. “Double-whammy” is the phrase that keeps coming up in the emails that I receive. They were hit in 1995 and 2011. I have heard the rejoinder from Government Members that the 1997 Labour Government did not do anything about the 1995 changes, but surely the Conservative Government and civil service of that time should have put a work plan in place. We hear that not all people were notified, but there should have been some provision in place for that to keep happening. Presumably because that Government were saving money on their communications strategy or something, that did not happen. Anyway, as many people have said, we are where we are.

Like many Members here, I have received representations from many people, including Michele Carlile, who was born in 1954, and Linda Gregory, who was born in 1953. Some have pointed out that they started work at 15. One of them said to me, “That’s probably a good 10 years before you did, my dear.” The circumstances that these people faced was different from what happens today. We must remember that the Equal Pay Act 1970 did not come into force until a Labour Government made it happen in 1976. These people brought up children before the free childcare and nurseries and all the other things that Labour Governments have brought in. We should therefore be sympathetic to their plight.

I think that in this debate people have confused the WASPI petition and the wording of the motion. Nobody is arguing against equality. Nobody is saying that there should be compensation at the levels that these people would have received. All that is being asked for is transitional arrangements to soften the blow. Some of the people in the campaign have been neutral money people, such as Paul Lewis of the BBC’s “Money Box”, a former constituent of mine, and Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com.

I urge Government Members to vote with us tonight, simply for transitional arrangements, since this Government have found so much money down the back of the sofa for so many things. The former Pensions Minister in the coalition, Steve Webb, has admitted that people are hard done by, so in the 17 seconds that I have left, let me say that this great pensions swindle must end now.

Gender Pricing

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who served with distinction as Minister for Women and Equalities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on securing this important debate. She made her name with the tampon tax, which made waves even if it did not quite get legislative change, so let us hope that such change will result from today’s debate.

I agree with everything that has been said. This is an example of everyday sexism. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it hits from babyhood to old age. There are so many examples. It is a great hidden gender swindle perpetrated by the retail trade, which has spotted an opportunity that many of us do not notice because someone would have to be quite diligent to do the comparison every time.

In 2016, we have been led to believe that gender barriers are dissolving and eroding in many areas, but there are examples of price differentials from toys to toiletries and even in clothing. A white T-shirt for a man in Tesco’s F&F range costs a lot less than the woman’s equivalent. It just seems wrong that products for her are much higher priced than the equivalent for him. The Times’ research found that the differential can sometimes be 37%, which is quite a lot, and the total cost of that can rack up over a woman’s life, and yet it happens without anyone noticing.

There was a disagreement over whether tampons and sanitary products were luxury items. This is not about those Yorkie bar wrappers saying, “It’s not for girls!”, which make my blood pressure rise—I am off Yorkies now. The issue will never be one of those things that is emotive in the same way as “Made In Dagenham” and the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the suffragettes, about whom a film was also made recently, because it happens without our noticing. It is not totemic in the same way. When shopping, the relationship is usually between value and quality, but here it has been subverted by gendered commodities. It seems strange to have two different versions of a product. Surely a razor is a razor and a pen is a pen, no matter the gender of who uses it. At Boots—I think—eight women’s razors cost £2.29, but it is £1.49 for 10 men’s razors. It makes no sense at all. If it is true that Boots has bowed to pressure, that is good news.

The campaigning has been thoroughly modern. The Fawcett Society started a petition that was spearheaded by Stevie Wise of Middlesex University and gathered some 35,000 signatures. This has happened a few times on women and equality issues recently. A constituent of mine ran a petition that achieved nearly 4,000 signatures, protesting that none of the 70 composers on the A-level music syllabus were women, and there has now been movement on that. When the new draft regulations for A-level politics come out, I think we will see that feminism has been reinstated in some form. The petition for that received nearly 50,000 signatures. It is a thoroughly modern, bottom-up way of campaigning that has led to Boots caving in. I said that I would be brief, but I just want to agree and commend my hon. Friend for her initiative. There are things that can be done.

Counterintuitively, in America, capitalist land of the free, they are more progressive than we are. The New York research that was mentioned earlier led to retailers sitting down around the table. We should be doing the same, including with Amazon and other online retailers, even if we think that their tax arrangements are a bit too friendly and they seem to be able to pay what they want. In fact, in New York they have rent control as well. I know that that is not pertinent to the subject of the debate, but on some of these issues, counterintuitively, the Americans have got it right. Surely we can catch up.

I hope that the Minister will have some good news. We thought that progress was being made on women’s equality. After all, at Prime Minister’s questions at the end of last year, the Prime Minister declared to me across the Dispatch Box that he is now a feminist. He needs to put his money where his mouth is and do something, because it seems like women are viewed as cash cows. One might say that we can vote with our wallets, but, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke said, how many people are really going to make the comparison all the time? It happens beneath the radar. It often seems like we are sleepwalking into discrimination. We have anti-discriminatory legislation in this country—introduced by Labour Governments—so this rip-off needs to stop.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We come to the only other man present.

Prisons and Probation

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

The cuts in staff lie at the root of many of the problems I am identifying. The fact that in many cases prisoners now spend 22 or 23 hours in their cell, and have restrictions on work, education and association, is leading to increased violence and poor behaviour in prisons. That is a very short-sighted development. I think the Government realise that, but perhaps too late.

Turning to probation and reoffending, figures I obtained last month revealed that almost one in 10 offenders are convicted of an offence within 18 days of release. HM inspectorate of probation’s fourth report on the implementation of transforming rehabilitation was published on 15 January. It highlighted the disparity in performance between the national probation service, which is still part of the National Offender Management Service, and the 21 community rehabilitation companies managed by private providers. For CRCs, one quarter of the offenders sampled had been convicted of a further offence, whereas for the NPS the figure was less than one fifth. On child protection and safeguarding on home visits, the NPS again outperformed CRCs. Earlier this month, the Lord Chancellor’s Department stopped publishing figures relating to staffing figures at CRCs. Why was this, except to conceal the hundreds of experienced probation staff being laid off across the country to promote the bottom line for the CRCs’ owners?

Let me turn to the youth estate, and in particular the role of G4S. We welcome the measures announced yesterday by the Lord Chancellor to effectively put Medway secure training centre into special measures. This is unsurprising, as they are exactly what I called for in an urgent question two weeks ago. I also welcome the decision by the director of Medway to stand down. However, individuals should not bear the entirety of the blame for what looks like corporate failure by G4S. I have now written to the Serious Fraud Office to ask that it investigates the allegations, made in the BBC “Panorama” programme on Medway, that instances of disorder were concealed to avoid G4S incurring fines under its contract. This is in addition to the ongoing SFO investigation into G4S and Serco’s manipulation of the tagging contracts for financial gain.

G4S has a truly dismal record of managing public contracts here and abroad. At Rainsbrook STC, six staff were dismissed and the contract was terminated last September, following an inspection report that said some staff were on drugs while on duty, colluded with detainees and behaved extremely inappropriately with young people. The company taking over the contract is MTCnovo. It is a name not well known in this country because, in origin, it is a US prison firm. As such, it presided over a riot in an Arizona state prison and ran a youth facility in Mississippi that a judge described as

“struggling with disorder, periodic mayhem, and staff ineptitude which leads to perpetual danger to the inmates and staff.”

It probably left that reference out of its application, along with the fact that its directors helped to set up Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

The problems of the youth estate go way beyond G4S, however, which is why the chief inspector of prisons has called for an inquiry into the failings at Medway and the implications for the wider youth justice system.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

On the Justice Committee, we interviewed the chief inspector and found his answers on ministerial interference in his reports very interesting. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to the outside world, the fact that the chief inspector’s contract is not being renewed makes it look like he was doing an effective job in holding the MOJ to account, and is now being silenced?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and one that I will come on to.

If the Lord Chancellor is a prison reformer, as he is now billed, we are prepared to work with him. He could start with the Prison Reform Trust report, “Correction or care? the use of custody for children in trouble”, published last year, which looked at successful models around the world. Successful prisons are becoming smaller, more focused and more rooted locally, which is why he is right to abandon his predecessor’s plans for a new borstal. Although he is also to be commended for wishing to close unsuitable prisons, if, as a consequence, prisons are built a long way from friends and family or we move from local to titan prisons, that will have its own drawbacks.

We need prison watchdogs with real teeth and independence. The outgoing inspector, Nick Hardwick, has done a great job in spite of, not because of the Government. This brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). The reports last week that the MOJ had tried to control or muzzle him were outrageous. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s announcement yesterday that he will retain Mr Hardwick’s expertise as head of the Parole Board, but let us use this opportunity to shake things up. We need a stronger, more independent inspectorate that is able to produce reports with total independence from the MOJ and to conduct more frequent and unannounced inspections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

There are occasions in custody when, for the safety of the young person and others, we have to use restraint. The chief inspector has acknowledged that the new process of minimising and managing physical restraint is an improvement, but that is the case only if it is used properly and appropriately, and not if it is abused. We are very mindful of that.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The report by the outgoing chief inspector of prisons quoted a member of staff at HMP Wormwood Scrubs as saying that one cell was so unsafe,

“I wouldn’t keep a dog in there.”

I know that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but will the Minister tell us what is being done to deal with the Tory prisons crisis?

[Andrew Selous]

I hope that the hon. Lady would be fair enough to recognise that this Government have accepted that much of our prison estate is simply not good enough. It is too old, it is inappropriate and we cannot provide the education or work that we need to provide. That is why the Chancellor has provided £1.3 billion to build nine new prisons, in addition to the new prison that we are building in north Wales, the new house blocks that we have delivered and the two further house blocks that we are going to deliver. We want a fit-for-purpose estate where we can rehabilitate people properly.

Riot Compensation Bill

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Lammy]

The profile of Enfield is changing slightly. Colleagues in Clapham Junction were caught up in the rioting, as of course were those in Enfield, Southgate.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The word on the street in Ealing, once known as Queen of the Suburbs, was that our police were diverted to Westfield, which is a shopping centre of high-value, high-end designer shops. That is why we were left empty-handed when the riots hit.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. There was a similar context in Salford. That goes to the point about the £1 million cap meaning different things on the high streets of Tottenham, Ealing, Salford and Croydon. It goes to the cost of running a business, to the detail of loss of stock as a result of flooding or following fire damage because a business has been burnt to the ground, and it goes to insurance. We want businesses to be insured and not to have to rely fully on the legislation. Given that we do not want to have areas in our country that cannot recover because of under-insurance or no insurance, the point about the £1 million cap is very important.

I go right back to the very good Kinghan report, which of course suggested the cap in the first place. Options were explored in Kinghan’s review. His first option was that we set a percentage—say, 25% or 50%—as the limit of compensation that the police or Government would pay in respect of claims paid by insurers to their customers. His second option was that we put an absolute limit on any single claim that the police or Government pay to an insurer—say, £500,000 or £1 million. The third option was that the limit be set by reference to the size of the insured business, so that the insurer receives compensation only for claims made by businesses with a turnover below the limit. I liked the third option a lot and thought it was fair, because it allowed for an understanding of the differences between small businesses.

In drafting the Bill and landing on the figure of £1 million, were the Minister’s officials in touch with the Federation of Small Businesses or with high street businesses, for example small retailers and newsagents? Where did they get their estimates for the cost of running a business? Will the Minister say more about the claims we saw as a result of the rioting across the country?

State Pension Age (Women)

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why fairness needs to be applied to everybody, and in this case, there is a cohort of women who are simply not being treated fairly. Our state pension system is funded on the contributory principle. This is not a state benefit for which no prior commitment is involved, yet this group of women who have been paying national insurance contributions over many years in good faith and who have fulfilled their end of the deal face being short-changed retrospectively.

We need to bear in mind many other factors. Fewer than one in four women who qualify for the new state pension in 2016-17 will get the full amount. Right up to 2054, fewer women than men will qualify for the full standard pension. Women are significantly more likely than men to work part time, and to do so for longer periods throughout their working lives, largely driven by caring roles, as hon. Members have mentioned. They therefore tend to be under-pensioned.

I welcome the fact that the new single-tier pension will recognise periods of time spent caring, which will help in the future, and I acknowledge that the Government have made progress on shrinking the gender pay gap—an issue on which consultation is in place. Progress has been made, with more women in work than ever before. We have seen lots of generous reforms—on entitlement to free child care, the national living wage and so forth—but all those are far too late for a generation of women who relied on work without many of the benefits that we now take for granted, while bringing up their families and discharging their caring responsibilities. Because of the number of women who are going out to work, many others have caring responsibilities for grandchildren as well as having to hold down part-time jobs.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will not give way again, because so many other Members wish to speak.

It is right for the rise in the pension age to reflect growing life expectancy, but a number of recent medical and actuarial studies show that life expectancy for women aged 65, 75, 85 and 95 fell in 2012, while rates among men continued to rise. There are big discrepancies in life expectancy among some of the poorest women in society, and, of course, those born in the 1950s—the ones whom we are discussing today—are the most reliant on the state pension, and therefore the most vulnerable to the changes. There are grounds for querying why members of that group are being hit disproportionately.

There is also the question of whether the women were given proper and adequate notice. I think we all agree that that clearly did not happen. The money expert Paul Lewis, who has helped to articulate this campaign so successfully, has given details about how little notice some women received:

“Approximately 650,000 women worst affected by the speed up— those born 6 April 1953 to 5 April 1955—were written to in…February 2012.

That means they got their letters between the ages of 57 and almost 59 that their pension age would not be 60.”

Some women received no notification at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on her outstanding opening speech, and the Backbench Business Committee on allocating time for this important debate. I am heartened to see the support from my Front-Bench colleagues, including my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—she is also my neighbour. I know that they all strongly support this campaign and the women in their constituencies who are affected by this issue. I congratulate the WASPI campaigners, who have worked tirelessly on this issue. They have now gained 107,000 signatures—perhaps 108,000 since the start of this debate.

The increases in the state pension age made by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011 have had a disproportionate impact on 1950s-born women. As we have heard, many received little or no notification of the changes, despite the Government saying that people must have 10 years’ notice of such changes. Indeed, the financial journalist Paul Lewis found that none of the 1950s-born women had been given 10 years' notice. In the worst case—we have heard about one of the worst cases from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman)—women were told at 57 and a half that their pension age would rise from 60 to 66. Women who expected to retire at 60 can now find themselves without a job, without a pension and without money to live on.

The former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has admitted that the Government made “a bad decision” over these changes. His excuse was that Ministers had not been properly briefed. It appears that civil servants did do a poor job on this legislation; astonishingly, the impact assessment for the 2011 Act states in its conclusion:

“Overall…based on the available evidence, the change to the previous timetable will not have a disproportionate impact on any group compared to another.”

[Dr Huq]

The fact that my hon. Friend had a recent debate in Westminster Hall on this very subject should send a message to the Government that people want action on it. Does she agree with my constituent Linda Gregory, who was born in 1953 and points out that she has been working since the age of 15 and therefore is being penalised even more than people entering the workplace at the age, which is the normal standard nowadays?

[Barbara Keeley]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says and I thank her for coming to that earlier debate.

It seems unbelievable that civil servants and Ministers could believe that taking billions in pensions away from a particular group, adding years to their state pension age and then not informing them in good time would not have a disproportionate impact on that group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

That is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) said that to put this right we would have to raise income tax by 7p. No, we would not. We could stop spending on other things. We could stop doing things like giving more money to the children of dead millionaires in inheritance tax bungs. We could stop giving businesses cuts in corporation tax at the same time as saying to poor people, “You’ve got to get even poorer.” The truth is that this has been a choice.

Two days ago, the salaries of the chief executives of the top 100 FTSE companies passed the average annual wage of working men and women. That is the level of inequality in this country. At the same time, we are saying to this group of women, “Sorry, you’ve got to carry the can for the failures of global capitalism.” By and large, Conservative Members simply do not care, because they do not understand the reality of life at the sharp end. My mother was one of the women who worked all her life. She was in and out of jobs where she was never allowed to join a pension scheme, and she was only able to build up a secondary pension scheme, so in the end she died in relative poverty. My mother died 15 years ago, but things have not really changed for the majority of women in this country, particularly the group we are talking about.

My constituent Elizabeth Ainsley wrote me a long, heartfelt letter from which I will quote only small bits. She says:

“My pensionable age has changed twice once in 1995 from 60 to 64…to bring women in line with men and then again when I was not notified until I was age 59 with 5 years to work to my retirement age that this had been changed from 64 to 66. This is just not enough time to prepare.”

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He has reminded me of an email I had from a constituent who also said she had been double-walloped. When she was younger, she did not think about these things, but now she has health problems and she worries that she will be knocking on jobseekers door if this goes on.

[Mr Anderson]

Every one of us in this room, particularly Conservative Members, could read out cases from people who have written to us and come to see us about the inequality and the disgrace that is going on today and should never have been allowed to happen.

My constituent Elizabeth goes on to say:

“I started work at age 16 and believed for 25 years that I would receive my pension at 60 only to have this changed not once but twice”

in her lifetime. She continues:

“I feel betrayed by the government and that women of my age have been discriminated against most of our working lives, denied the ability to prepare for our retirement and are now taking the biggest hit of all so the government can rush through the transition to equal retirement age to save money.”

I believe that the Minister is a decent man, but I am not sure that he will have the power or the authority today to do what we think should be done.

The ex-Minister responsible for this was Mr Webb, the Liberal Democrats’ human shield. Where are the Liberal Democrats today? Is anybody here from the Liberal Democrats? Perhaps they are ashamed of him, as they should be, for being a human shield for the austerity agenda that they forced through during five years in coalition. He says now that he made a mistake. He admits that it was an error and he was not properly briefed by people in the DWP.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South was absolutely right to say that this is a contract with the people of this country. Yet the people of this country had no say in that contract; there was no proper negotiation where they could say, “Let me have my say and you have yours.” It was a contract imposed on them, and it has been breached. That needs to be put right and we need to do the right thing.

Safer Neighbourhood Policing: London

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. It is an honour to be sat next to the next Mayor of London, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan).

We know now that there are no immediate cuts to police budgets. Last time we debated this subject, there were worries about potential cuts of £800,000 to £1 billion. We now know that those will not happen, but there are worries among people on my patch that the devil is in the detail. I have some questions for the Minister about possible attempts to reshape London’s police force by stealth.

Members have already said that the safer neighbourhood team model was a great achievement of the previous Labour Government, welcomed by communities at the time. We also heard about the 1-2-3 model, so I will not go into that again. As far as I understand it, the headline announcement of no immediate cuts was against a background of £600 million of savings—that euphemistic term—already made between 2010 and this year. We have heard how London as a whole has lost 3,170 dedicated neighbourhood PCSOs since 2010, which is a 70% cut. What is the shape of the police to come?

In Ealing, we have gone from a ward-based model to clusters. There are brilliant, dedicated people such as Graham Durn from Acton, James Lenton from the Ealing Common and Northfields ward, where there has been a merging of wards, and James Bister from the Acton cluster. However, there is a worry, and I want to echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) said. I actually have some good news about crime reduction in Ealing, where levels have been some of the best. Last time we debated this subject, we were worried we could lose PCSOs and police stations and that police office numbers could be cut. My worry, however, is that the borough model is in danger.

We have 32 boroughs in London, of which Ealing is the third most populated. We have 600-odd police officers in Ealing. I am worried about the dilution that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West warned of. There is a current programme to tackle the MOPAC 7 crimes, which include burglary, criminal damage, robbery, theft of and from motor vehicles, and theft from the person. Even under the new model, in which we have gone from safer neighbourhood teams to local policing, we can report a 27% reduction in those seven crimes in Ealing, with the most dramatic reductions being in robbery and burglary. I welcome that fact.

We all have to recognise that policing with and in local communities is about neighbourhood policing. Police officers in this country are not seen as Robocop. We have strong ties, and people know named officers. That is the difference between us and other nations, but I fear that that is endangered by the cuts by stealth, the reshaping, the shaving off of PCSO numbers and the threat of merging borough commands.

All the police I speak to say that they are in a position of not knowing what will happen next. They still do not know the future shape of the police force in London, and the amalgamation of borough commands is a worry. At the moment, all 32 boroughs have a chief superintendent, and that is why things have improved: there is a go-to person. The chief superintendent and the command team can liaise with all the authorities—for example, the chief executive of the council, the health services, the mental health services, the probation service, safeguarding, which covers adults and children, and third sector people. That could be lost.

We heard about the tri-borough nightmare in Harrow, where the borough command is possibly merging with Barnet, which is geographically quite far. I believe the idea of merging borough commands is still on the table. It has been discussed before by MOPAC, and I want some clarity on whether it is still an option. Will it go ahead? What benefits will it bring? What significant improvements will it make to local people in Ealing and Acton if you merge these forces in this way? [Interruption.] Does the Minister want to intervene?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It is not me who will make any of these decisions. I think you were referring to the Minister when you said “you”.

[Dr Huq]

Okay; I apologise to the Minister.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise; that was inappropriate of me. If the hon. Lady says “you” in her speech, it refers not to me but the Chair. I cannot do anything anyhow, because that is for the commissioner.

[Dr Huq]

My apologies. I am a rookie MP, so the terminology is still new to me.

The 27% reduction in the MOPAC 7 crimes in Ealing is good news for the Minister, and I am sure he will welcome it. However, communities and boroughs need dedicated PCSOs. That is vital to our police service. Each of the 32 boroughs in London needs their own chief superintendent and command team. We as MPs need to work hand in glove with the police dedicated to our patches.

I will be brief—I only intended to make an intervention, but it has turned into a speech. The money may have been found down the back of the sofa so that it can be said there are no police cuts, but there are lingering doubts about what the shape of the police force will look like and that the worst could be yet to come, so I would like some clarification on the issue of the borough model.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The last Back-Bench speech will be from Helen Hayes; I appreciate her waiting. It would be helpful if we could start the Front-Bench speeches at 12.40 pm.